Changes to Timeliness and Completeness of Infectious Disease Reporting in Texas After Implementation of an Epidemiologic Capacity Program

Overview

Journal Public Health Rep

Publisher Sage Publications

Specialty Public Health

Date 2021 Apr 30

PMID 33930278

Authors

Kahler W Stone

Marilyn Felkner

Eric Garza

Maria Perez-Patron

Cason D Schmit

Thomas J McDonald

Jennifer A Horney

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to characterize the changes in timeliness and completeness of disease case reporting in Texas in response to an increasing number of foodborne illnesses and high-consequence infectious disease investigations and the Texas Department of State Health Services' new state-funded epidemiologist (SFE) program.

Methods: We extracted electronic disease case reporting data on 42 conditions from 2012 through 2016 in all local health department (LHD) jurisdictions. We analyzed data on median time for processing reports and percentage of complete reports across time and between SFE and non-SFE jurisdictions using Mann-Whitney tests and scores.

Results: The median time of processing improved from 13 days to 10 days from 2012 to 2016, and the percentage of disease case reports that were complete improved from 19.6% to 27.7%. Most reports were for foodborne illnesses; both timeliness (11 to 7 days) and completeness (20.9% to 23.5%) improved for these reports.

Conclusions: Disease reporting improvements in timeliness and completeness were associated with the SFE program and its enhancement of epidemiologic capacity. SFEs were shown to improve surveillance metrics in LHDs, even in jurisdictions with a high volume of case reports. Adding epidemiologist positions in LHDs produces a tangible outcome of improved disease surveillance.

References

Heymann D, Rodier G . Global surveillance, national surveillance, and SARS. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004; 10(2):173-5. PMC: 3322938. DOI: 10.3201/eid1002.031038. View

Ward M, Brandsema P, van Straten E, Bosman A . Electronic reporting improves timeliness and completeness of infectious disease notification, The Netherlands, 2003. Euro Surveill. 2005; 10(1):27-30. View

Sahal N, Reintjes R, Aro A . Review article: communicable diseases surveillance lessons learned from developed and developing countries: literature review. Scand J Public Health. 2009; 37(2):187-200. DOI: 10.1177/1403494808101179. View

. Potential effects of electronic laboratory reporting on improving timeliness of infectious disease notification--Florida, 2002-2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008; 57(49):1325-8. View

Johnson M, Williams J, Lee A, Bradley K . Completeness and timeliness of electronic vs. conventional laboratory reporting for communicable disease surveillance--Oklahoma, 2011. Public Health Rep. 2014; 129(3):261-6. PMC: 3982541. DOI: 10.1177/003335491412900308. View

Revere D, Hills R, Dixon B, Gibson P, Grannis S . Notifiable condition reporting practices: implications for public health agency participation in a health information exchange. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):247. PMC: 5346201. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4156-4. View

Jajosky R, Groseclose S . Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health. 2004; 4:29. PMC: 509250. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-4-29. View

Mondor L, Brownstein J, Chan E, Madoff L, Pollack M, Buckeridge D . Timeliness of nongovernmental versus governmental global outbreak communications. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012; 18(7):1184-7. PMC: 3376818. DOI: 10.3201/eid1807.120249. View

Stone K, Felkner M, Perez-Patron M, Schmit C, McDonald T, Horney J . How Do Infectious Disease Epidemiologist Positions Increase Public Health Capacity? Results from a Qualitative Study of Local Health Departments. Health Secur. 2019; 17(6):454-461. DOI: 10.1089/hs.2019.0083. View

10.

. Overview of the WHO framework for monitoring and evaluating surveillance and response systems for communicable diseases. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2004; 79(36):322-6. View

11.

Silk B, Berkelman R . A review of strategies for enhancing the completeness of notifiable disease reporting. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005; 11(3):191-200. DOI: 10.1097/00124784-200505000-00003. View

12.

Yoo H, Park O, Park H, Lee E, Jeong E, Lee J . Timeliness of national notifiable diseases surveillance system in Korea: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:93. PMC: 2676269. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-93. View

13.

Nguyen T, Thorpe L, Makki H, Mostashari F . Benefits and barriers to electronic laboratory results reporting for notifiable diseases: the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene experience. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97 Suppl 1:S142-5. PMC: 1854985. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.098996. View

14.

Gebbie K, Turnock B . The public health workforce, 2006: new challenges. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006; 25(4):923-33. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.4.923. View

15.

Doyle T, Glynn M, Groseclose S . Completeness of notifiable infectious disease reporting in the United States: an analytical literature review. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 155(9):866-74. DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.9.866. View

16.

Sarma N, Ullrich A, Wilking H, Ghozzi S, Lindner A, Weber C . Surveillance on speed: Being aware of infectious diseases in migrants mass accommodations - an easy and flexible toolkit for field application of syndromic surveillance, Germany, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2018; 23(40). PMC: 6178587. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.40.1700430. View

17.

Kluberg S, Mekaru S, McIver D, Madoff L, Crawley A, Smolinski M . Global Capacity for Emerging Infectious Disease Detection, 1996-2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016; 22(10):E1-6. PMC: 5038396. DOI: 10.3201/eid2210.151956. View

18.

Samoff E, Fangman M, Fleischauer A, Waller A, MacDonald P . Improvements in timeliness resulting from implementation of electronic laboratory reporting and an electronic disease surveillance system. Public Health Rep. 2013; 128(5):393-8. PMC: 3743288. DOI: 10.1177/003335491312800510. View